Rep Trey Gpwdy articulates unanswered questions
 

Here is Trey Gowdy, former prosecutor (never once lost a case) articulating to the media, the unanswered questions that justify the request for additional hearings.

These are significant questions. Have they been clearly answered already? If so, Gowdy whould explain why he says they are unanswered. If many of these are still unanswered (and I can't fathom why these wouldn't have been answered yet), that's valid reason for the hearings.

The Dems do not want thee hearings. Human Nature 101 suggests that when one has noting to hide, one does not quiver at the thought of answering a question.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1jeJmeeMjs

The GOP picked the right guy. Sharp, committed conservative, won 100% of his cases as a prosecutor, and he's not a right-wing nut job, it won't be easy to paint him as a pure ideologue.

All unanswered reasonable questions. Know the truth and the truth
will set you free, on both sides.

lies = profit

I guess the good thing is that when we reviews all the documents and testimony gathered over the previous 7 investigations he'll find answers to his questions.

Most politically motivated show trial in history.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Really ??? I guess you don't remember something that actually might have some similarities ...
Does Iran Contra ring a bell ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The good news is, soon we'll all know. Interesting that the GOP can't wait to start the hearings, and the Democrats want nothing to do with it. I find that revealing, I am sure you do not.

Gowdy is not a party hack. He was named a US attorney by one Bill Clinton. He's respected on your side, though I'd imagine not for long, as I suspect he's about to take a lot of powerful Democrats out to the woodshed.

I just hope it lasts until 2016...

Got any evidence?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There are unsolved murders everyday ....doesn't mean they didn't happen .
The evidence is coming . Cover ups take time . If it were easy then even you would be convinced that there just possible could be something not quite right here .
Think of this as a house of cards ....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Gowdy is not an ideological simpleton. I don't think he would've agreed to chair this committee unless he suspected (or knew for a fact) that there was something there.

I cannot wait.

I thought that was the stained blue dress.....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Count them ,,, 13 ,,, Not a Peep .. http://www.policymic.com/articles/40...s-said-nothing

The point of the investigation is ,to get "ALL" the documents, and testimony from the 6 that were on the ground that nobody has heard from.
A lot of drip, drip, drip, and stonewalling going on. Sixty one percent of the American People want the answers Gowdy outlined which is the purpose to get the at the unanswered questions.
Like I said a simple truth telling address to the American People by
the President and Hillary would clear it up in no time. If there is nothing to hide what's the problem ?

We all already know the answer to that one...

They already testified in October to a House Intelligence Commitee.

Oh, is this news?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Don't you think that after so many (7 or 8) investigations, tens of thousands of documents, dozens of testimonies and participation by non-partisan and high ranking 40 year veterans of our military...that someone would think due diligence has been done?

Back in the day it would have long since been.

Wake up.

-spence

So where was the President during the time these brave men were fighting for their life's and begging for help ?
I missed that testimony
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Spence, let's let it play out, and see if anything new is uncovered.

You sound a little nervous about the hearings. I wonder why that is.

Spence, were special forces soldiers told to get to Benghazi ASAP? When was that order given.

And I'm sorry, as I have said (and as Gowdy said) when the administration justifies not sending in special forces because "they couldn't have gotten there in time", when obviously they had no way of knowing how long the attack would last, that alone tells me that either there is a cover up, or someone is too stupid to have the job they are in.

The House, led by the GOP, is getting this hearing. Spence, someone you absolutely adore once said "elections have consequences". Well, here you go.

I'm not sure it's vital for me to know whether he was at Pebble Beach or Augusta, because he has the ability to implement decisions from anywhere, at least from any golf course or Jay-Z concert.

I'm supposed to believe that Susan Rice went on the Sunday morning talk shows, because the SecState doesn't like Sunday morning talk shows? I don't give a frog's fat ass what she likes, her ambassador was murdered after his requests for extra security were denied, so it's her responsibility. If she was sending hate mail to Monica Lewinski, she could take a morning off and do the talk show circuit.

Watch how fast she suddenly decides she likes those shows when she's running for President and they promise a friendly interview.

I care where he was. I'm of the understanding he knew the attack was taking place . If he shrugged it off and passed on the decision making to others then I would like someone held accountable..... for the first time in the past 6 years !!!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"I'm of the understanding he knew the attack was taking place "

I'm sure you're right. He had to know.

"If he shrugged it off and passed on the decision making to others "

We shuold know whether or not he took the reins or passed it off. But I don't think that where he was, answers that question. He could have been on a golf course, but dropped everything to take charge of this. Or, he coud have been in the situation room, chatting online with Beyonce while it was unfolding. My point is, his exact location doesn't necessarily tell you whether or not he was leading here.

"I would like someone held accountable.."

I suspect that those who dropped the ball, are about to get, at long last, raked over the coals a bit.

"for the first time in the past 6 years "

Come on, give credit where it's due. Obama has held someone at fault for the events of the last 6 years - George Bush. And the wealthy 1% (excluding his pals in Hollywood, of course). And racists. And of course, Foxnews! Sorry, I mean Fauxnews, haw haw haw!!

I don't think the Select Committee has any greater subpoena power than the Issa Committees have.

This has been beaten to death. What I find amazing is that when dozens of top officials all come to the same conclusion there's still a conspiracy...one that would require the collusion of hundreds of people.

I'll say it again, the primary goal of the GOP is to use Benghazi to raise campaign cash and drag it into the mid-term election.

-spence

"This has been beaten to death"

All due respect, you keep saying that, but not once have you provided specifics. I'm not suggesting that nothing was done, I just don't know exactly what was done. And I'm also telling you that you are 100% incorrect when you suggest it takes hours for a quick response team to get in the air. These guys are, in effect, "on call". Maybe not quite as simple as putting on a fire helmet and hopping in a fire truck. But the time it takes to get them airborne is measured in minutes, not hours. You can plan while you are in the air. You can decide not to engage. But you have to have someone there, as soon as physically possible, so you at least have the option of engaging. Did that happen?

"dozens of top officials all come to the same conclusion "

Is that what happened? How about the high-ranking guy who said we could, and should, have done more? I posted that, you said soimething to the effect that he changed his mind.

Trey Gowdy said in his statement (watch the video), that he doesn't have access to witnesses. Is he lying? If so, and I'm serious, let's impeach Gowdy. Do you have evidence he's lying?

Do we know who, exactly, denied Stevens' request for extra security? And why? And what happened to that person? Were they fired, or given a promotion?

This is exactly the wrong kind of partisan conspiracy thinking that has no place in a Congressional investigation. It's not that there's any evidence Obama was out to lunch and this had a negative impact on our response, none at all.

Most of the Benghazi issues follow a similar thread. Wrap tin-foil around head, play connect the dots, then relentlessly pursue evidence to support your thinking. When you don't find any, it's not because your thinking is wrong, it's that you just haven't looked hard enough.

Same BS that got us into Iraq after 9/11. As #^&#^&#^&#^& Cheney famously once said about the Atta meeting in Prague when challenged on the lack of basis...well, it hasn't totally been shot down either.

-spence

"It's not that there's any evidence Obama was out to lunch and this had a negative impact on our response, none at all. "

Similar to Jimmy Carter, chances are our folks under attack would be better off if the military leaders sent Obama out to get some magic beans while they handled this.

"relentlessly pursue evidence to support your thinking. When you don't find any, it's not because your thinking is wrong, it's that you just haven't looked hard enough."

Spence, you keep making fun at people who say there are unanswered questions. yet when I ask you which special forces teams were put on the move and when, what I get from you is either (1) that's been answered already, or (2) they were no troops close enough to get there within 12 hours. Those kinds of responses (either overly vague or outright nonsense) will result in people wanting more details. Neither you nor your hero seem to grasp that.

The hearings are coming. I cannot wait to watch Gowdy refuse to let anyone whitewash this. He is absolutely the perfect choice. If he scores political points, he's really going places. I'm sure that's on ereason why he wa spicked, he's being groomed for bigger things.

My understanding is that the FAST teams in Spain have to equip for the mission, that does take time. The special ops in Croatia can't just fly straight there. Both have to move to staging locations.

Also, I can't believe you'd just blindly fly in guns blazing. Without proper support the risk would be too high.

Ultimately though, I'll trust the opinion of our Military over a bunch of internet conspirators any day of the week.

I think he spoke a bit too freely up front, then when asked specifically he walked backwards. There's a big difference between "we could have done more" and "I wish we could have done more."

All I know is that the men on the ground were interview by Congress behind closed doors. The CIA doesn't have to reveal everything they were doing in Benghazi to the open public, but if there's a Constitutional issue you can bet the House wouldn't let it slide.

Nothing happened.

The Mullen investigation looked at this specifically and found the problems mostly systemic in nature. There were several people identified as key parts of the problem who were moved out of that role, I don't believe they were fired, but with systemic issues it can be difficult to assign blame to one person.

-spence

Yes, this is news to me, I haven't been able to find anything on the 6
sent to Germany having been interviewed. :huh:

The survivors who were CIA agents testified behind closed doors.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ersi/?page=all

The others were interviewed by the FBI just after the attack. They're prohibited from speaking publicly by their non-disclosure agreements. CBS reported in 2013 these transcripts were turned over to Congress and they were interviewed again during the State investigation.

They'd also likely be protected as whistle blowers if they were revealing criminal wrong-doing.

There's plenty of reporting on this stuff.

-spence

Good one ! Been reported to death YOU might say
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Are you mocking the casualties?

-spence

Nice spin . Are you calling yourself a casualty now?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"The special ops in Croatia can't just fly straight there. Both have to move to staging locations."

I don't know if that's true. I mean, they couldn't drop right in front of the annex, but they could have been really, really close by. Were they? I don't know. But they absolutely should have been. A quick reaction team (FAST team) is supopsed to go from where they are, to the trouble spot, very quickly.

"I can't believe you'd just blindly fly in guns blazing"

I didn't say that. But if you don't have troops in the immediate vicinity (closest safe spot), you can't do anything. So I could just as easily say, "I can't believe Obama would leave those 4 Americans to die alone."

You don't necessarily go in guns blazing. But you don't always have hours to plan, either. You can't treat every operation as if it's the Normandy invasion.

Watch the movie, or read the book, Lone Survivor. 4 man seal team comes under attack, they radio for help, a helicopter is in the air within a few minutes. They didn't take days formulating a plan, going over maps, discussing logistics. Sometimes you have to react quickly. That's why we have special forces.

"I'll trust the opinion of our Military "

I'll also tryst them over an elected politician. Do you trust the guy who said we should have done more?

"I think he spoke a bit too freely up front, then when asked specifically he walked backwards"

In other words, you don't like what he said, so you dismiss it. I thought you just said you trust him?

"the men on the ground were interview by Congress behind closed doors."

Watch the 3 minute video I posted here. Trey Gowdy specifically said he didn't have access to witnesses. If he's lying, impeach him. If he's telling the truth, then clearly we need the hearings. Fair enough?

That's GREAT! And the person in charge of that system at the time, is your candidate fo President? Good lord...

If State Dept had a systemic problem with keeping people safe, how is the person in charge of that department fit to be promoted? Do we want the whole country to have those systemic problems? What if we all come under sniper fire like she did, due to the systemic problems she couldn't rectify?

Talk about backing yourself into a corner! Good luck responding to that...

FAST stands for Fleet Anti-Terrorism Team. They're to provide reinforcements rapidly, not instantly...

I believe in that context it was a quick reaction force that responded. They would be pre-positioned and at the ready to respond to the Seal operation. It's a totally different scenario.

By his own words I think he believes we should have been able to do more. I think he also believes that this wasn't feasible given the situation.

Gowdy has been such a champion of Benghazi myths I'm surprised he doesn't have a retainer from FOX.

He probably doesn't have access to witnesses…right now. They would have to be subpoenaed or if classified worked out behind closed doors. Just because he doesn't have access doesn't mean other investigations have. Gowdy appears to be using a simple rhetorical trick to make you believe something is being withheld.

-spence

"FAST stands for Fleet Anti-Terrorism Team. They're to provide reinforcements rapidly, not instantly"

How many ways do you need me to say it? Who said anything about instantly? We had, as it turns out, 12 hours. That's more than enough time.

"I believe in that context it was a quick reaction force that responded. They would be pre-positioned and at the ready to respond "

Then you would be wrong. It was a SEAL base, but the SEALs weren't expecting to go out, so they were not nearly as ready as a quick reaction force team would be. They were not planning to go out in support of the 4-man SEAL team. But when they heard the call, they were in the air in short order. It must be very convenient when you always assume everything in a way that support your narrative. You never question anything that supports liberalism, you never give any consideration to anything else. It's incredible.

"Gowdy appears to be using a simple rhetorical trick to make you believe something is being withheld"

Fortunately for all of us, we'll soon know.

Check your facts.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Boy, that's telling me.

Spence, you don't even need to post, ever. we'll just assume your position can be assumed thusly:

liberal = good
conservative = bad.

No exceptions, ever.

About right?

Just read the book Lone Survivor. It's all there. Those guys on the base were not expecting a rapid deployment, but when they heard a call for help, they grabbed their rifles and ran to a chopper.

I am so sorry that fact spit in the face of your fairy tale. Spence, if you need to ignore a large number of facts in order to cling to your position, maybe you should re-evaluate your position.

I see you'd rather hide under your bed than explain why the person in charge at State who presided over what you called a "systemic" inability to keep her employees alive, deserves a promotion? You have fun with that one. Good night.

Yes, but not all. Let's get it ALL on the table and come to a final conclusion.
That should satisfy both sides and bring closure for the families.

And if it doesn't reach a different conclusion from Mullen et al., the problem is, this issue will STILL be raised as a political item right up to 2016,

And it should be . Obama made it political by blaming the video for political purposes
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device